In a time when more children are benefiting from free breakfast in schools than ever before, a number of Republicans are raising concerns over this initiative. It’s hard to believe that providing food to hungry kids could be controversial, but it appears that the program ensuring free breakfast for low-income students is facing potential changes due to congressional pushback.
According to a recent report by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), participation in school breakfast programs among low-income children has risen by 3.7 percent during the 2015-2016 school year, bringing the total to over 12 million kids—a remarkable increase of nearly 50 percent over the past decade. This is a significant step forward in addressing childhood hunger. Who would argue against that?
If you guessed Republicans, you’re spot on. The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), implemented during the Obama administration, is particularly under fire. This program allows school districts with at least 40% of students eligible for free meals to offer complimentary meals to all students. This approach eliminates the need for families to fill out numerous applications and reduces the stigma associated with receiving free meals, making breakfast a norm rather than an exception.
Critics within the Republican party argue that the CEP provides free food to families who don’t necessarily need it, suggesting that the eligibility threshold should be raised to 60%. One Republican even labeled the program as “welfare for middle-class kids.” However, this perspective fails to acknowledge that many families earning $35,000 or $40,000 for a family of four still struggle financially. According to Pew Research, a family of that income level doesn’t even qualify as “middle class” until they reach 67-200% of their state’s median income.
The working poor are a reality in our society, and many families often feel ashamed to seek assistance, even when it could significantly improve their children’s lives. If a community has nearly half of its students living in poverty, providing free breakfast in schools seems like a no-brainer. It’s perplexing that some politicians would consider this area for budget cuts when there are far greater issues to address.
We witness millionaires dodging taxes while hardworking families face scrutiny for accepting assistance for their children’s nutrition. This mismatch indicates a troubling trend, where the wealthy are defended for their tax strategies, yet low-income families are criticized for simply trying to feed their kids.
The success of the CEP, which has increased the number of low-income children receiving breakfast at school by 50 percent, should be celebrated—not targeted for reform. Meanwhile, plans for substantial expenditures, like a border wall estimated to cost $22 billion, seem to be met with much less resistance. This reality raises serious questions about our priorities.
We need to advocate for programs that support our most vulnerable populations instead of allowing politicians to exploit their needs to benefit the affluent. If you’re interested in more information about home insemination, check out our post on intracervical insemination.
For additional insights, consider visiting Cryobaby’s at-home insemination kits. For a thorough understanding of the intricacies of pregnancy and home insemination, the CDC provides excellent resources.
In summary, the push to reform a successful program that has helped millions of low-income children receive breakfast at school is a troubling development. This initiative not only reduces stigma but also contributes to better academic performance. Addressing childhood hunger should be a priority, not a budget-cutting target.